A collection of best practice articles to help grow companies with an emphasis on finance. The goal of the blog is to explain how these best practices work, enabling anyone to put these ideas to immediate use. Articles are written by Matt H. Evans, CPA, CMA, CFM

Upcoming Articles

NOTE: Effective January 1, 2017, I will no longer post new articles since I am now fully retired.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

One of the
most overused terms in business has to be: Best Practices. It seems everyone
(including myself) is always labeling something as a “best practice.” Thanks to
Hackett Benchmarking, a common definition has emerged for best practices.
According to Hackett Benchmarking, a best practice must:

1) Place the
company in a top percentile ranking within its industry.

2) Leverage
and take advantage of technology.

3) Improve
quality and speed, and also lower costs.

4) Give
management more control and influence.

5) And
finally, it has to be working; i.e. it can't be planned but not implemented.

Friday, December 11, 2015

It was said
some 20 years ago by the Education President, George H. W. Bush that everyone
should be able to: Speak, Write and
Think. These are the three most important skills everyone should have. Why
are these skills so important? Because they are the most transferable skills a
person will use throughout their life. These skills also create the widest
range of opportunities for people in a world where specific job related skills
can become obsolete. And if you don’t think you need transferable skills, then
consider that the average American will go through 10 to 14 jobs by the age of
38. One out of every four workers has been on the job one year or less
according to the Department of Labor.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

If you
expect to attract and retain the best people, you must have market competitive
pay. Additionally, you have to be willing to accept some level of employee
turnover. The key is to design your pay so that you have targeted turnover;
i.e. you induce turnover of low performing personnel while re-enforcing a
culture of high performance, enabling you to retain top performers. This is why
every company should consider linking pay to performance.

The problem
for many companies is the minimal spread between high and low performers. Most
companies design their pay around a merit matrix that looks like this:

Performance Level

Highest

Above

Below

Lowest

Exceptional

3.5%

3.5%

3.0%

3.0%

Exceeds Expectations

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

Effective

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

2.0%

Development Needed

2.5%

2.5%

2.0%

2.0%

Unacceptable/Poor

2.5%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

In the above
example, the spread between the best and worst performers is a mere 1.5%. In
today’s world where companies are fighting to attract and retain top talent,
you must be much more aggressive with your merit matrix so that it looks more
like this:

Performance Level

Highest

Above

Below

Lowest

Exceptional

6.5%

5.5%

5.0%

4.0%

Exceeds Expectations

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

Effective

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

Development Needed

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Unacceptable/Poor

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

In this
example, people who don’t perform get no increase. This sends a strong signal
to everyone that performance matters and for those who do perform, you will get
a serious merit increase. This is one of the most powerful statements any
company can make when it comes to retaining the best people. You should also
think about the limited money you have to spread around. You want to allocate
your limited resources to those people who deliver results. A merit matrix that
has distinct differences between low and high performance will do more to
communicate and create a culture of high performance than any speech or memo
you will issue.

“Variable pay budgets and spending have
nearly doubled in the last 20 years, subsequently emerging as the
pay-for-performance vehicle of choice now and for the foreseeable future. In a
more robust job market, competition for talent exists in every sector. As a
result, we are seeing industries that have traditionally shied away from
providing bonuses, such as agriculture, higher-education and the federal
government, realizing they must establish variable pay programs to compete for
and retain the best talent.” - Ken Abosch, Compensation Leader for Aon Hewitt.

Trying to
retain the best people is becoming increasingly difficult. According to a 2015 survey
conducted by WorldatWork, over 80% of the people surveyed indicated they plan
to leave their job. Contrast this to five years ago when the percentage was
60%. High performers are not going to stick around for the usual 3% raise while
others get 1%.

A final
point concerns the traditional performance review. If you link pay to
performance, you need to rely more on 360 degree feedback that has some
anonymity. This provides an objective, open and honest review process that
serves as your basis for administering your merit matrix. Additionally, your
review process has to be on-going and not just once a year. It should be a
cumulative reflection on how well someone has helped the company meet
department and company goals. And the review process should be both
quantitative and qualitative. For example, the Marketing Manager was able to
help the company meet its sales targets (quantitative), but he also mentored
and grew the capability of our marketing team (qualitative). If you can have a
robust back-end review process coupled with a serious merit matrix (as
described in this article) and combine this with a competitive benefits package,
then you have established the foundation that should enable a high performing workforce.

"It is very difficult, but not impossible, to put a price tag on losing key people and their smarts. As if to emphasize the intangible yet dire nature of these costs, some executives were unable to provide a dollar figure, but simply responded 'incalculable' or 'priceless.' So even if you can't quantify the costs of knowledge loss, you might agree that the cost is often a lot, enough that you would like some options to avoid or minimize these costs. Despite the acknowledged threat, a surprising number of organizations are doing nothing or little about it." - Critical Knowledge Tools by Dorothy Leonard, Walter Swap and Gavin Barton